Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/258/2013

SASURIE ENGINEERING COLLEGE, THE PRINCIPAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

R. HEMIMA - Opp.Party(s)

V. BHARATHIDASAN

27 Sep 2021

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

PRESENT:    HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE.  R. SUBBIAH ,                                  PRESIDENT

                 TMT. Dr. S.M.   LATHA  MAHESWARI,                                              MEMBER

 

F.A.No.258/2013

(Against the order passed in C.C.No.63/2011, dated 12.04.2013 on the file of the District Commission, Erode)

 

 THE 27^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021.

 

1.    The Principal,

       Sasurie Enginnering  College,

       Vijayamangalam,

       Erode District.

 

2.    The Correspondent, Secretary,

       Sasurie Enginnering  College,

       Vijayamangalam,

       Erode District.                                                                                                                    Appellants/Opposite Parties

     

                            Vs

 

R. Hemima,

D/o. (Late). S. Rajendran,

Door No.28,  Jawan Nagar,

College Road,

Trippur – 2.                                                                                                                              Respondent/Complainant

 

 

Counsel for the Appellants/Opposite Parties       :   M/s. R. Dhanalakshmi,   Advocates.    

Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant           :   M/s. V. Balu, Advocate.   

 

          This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 27.09.2021 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following;-

ORDER

HON’BLE THIRU.   JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT.  (Open Court) 

 

1.       This appeal has been filed by the opposite parties/appellants herein under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the  District Commission, Erode made in C.C.No.63/2011, dated 12.04.2013,  allowing the complaint.

2.       The factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal is as follows;-           The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant after completing the B.E. degree, with the intention to join in M.E. Course had written TANCA, Test (Tamil Nadu Common Admissions) 2009 and in the above examination, she was provisionally selected on 29.08.2009 for admission in the opposite parties college under the Management Quota and accordingly the complainant was admitted.  At the time of admission, the opposite parties asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.37,000/- as admission fees but initially the complainant paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- as tuition fees and Rs.5000/- as stores fees and thereby she totally paid a sum of Rs.25,000/-. However, the complainant was asked to pay the remaining balance of Rs.12,000/- at the time commencement of the course. In the meantime, the complainant got admission in some other college under the Government Quota for the same course and hence the complainant requested the opposite parties to return the fees paid by the complainant and since the opposite parries refused to return the fees, the complainant approached the District Consumer Commission with a consumer complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs.25,000/- i.e., the fees paid by the complainant along with interest and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and mental agony with costs of Rs.2500/-.

3.       The case of the complainant was resisted by the opposite parties by filing detailed written version contending inter alia that the complainant was admitted in M.E., VLSI Design Course in the opposite parties College and she attended the class from 05.09.2009 to 13.09.2009 and thereafter without giving any intimation, she joined in another college and therefore the opposite parties are not bound to return the fees paid by her.   To the notice, dated 18.10.2010 sent by the complainant, proper reply was sent by the opposite parties.  The complaint was filed with mala fide intention to grab money from the opposite parties. The complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Commission and thus sought for dismissal of the complaint.    

4.            Before the District Commission to prove their case, the complainant and the opposite parties have filed their respective proof  affidavits and Exhibits A1 to A38 were marked on the side of the complainant and Exhibits B1 to B5 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.     

5.          On hearing the submission and analysing the evidences adduced by both sides, the District Commission held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and directed them to return Rs.24,000/- (after deducting process fees of Rs.1000/- from Rs.25,000/-) and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties as well as mental agony suffered by the complainant with cost of Rs.1500/-.  Aggrieved over the order of the District Commission, the opposite parties have preferred this appeal praying for setting aside the order of the District Commission since the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Commissions.     

6.         Now, the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties mainly on the ground that as per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended by Act 62 of 2002, the respondent/complainant will not come under the provisions of the said definition nor comes under the definition of Section 2(b) or 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The education imparted by the Appellants/Opposite parties’ college to the students would not attract any of the provisions of the said Act.  Hence, it is submitted that the lis as initiated by the Respondent/Complainant itself is not maintainable.  In support of this contention, the appellants/opposite parties had relied upon plethora of case laws. 

7.        Countering the submissions the learned counsel for the Respondent/complainant submitted that as per the University Grant Commission’s public notice, it is stated that in the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course the wait listed candidate should be given admission against the vacant seat and the entire fees collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- shall be returned to the student.  In case of any violation of instructions issued by the University Grant Commission shall call for punitive action including withdrawal of approval and recognition against erring institutions and universities.   Therefore, they are bound to return the amount and thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal.  

9.         We have heard the submissions of both sides, perused the materials available on records and the order impugned. On the basis of the submissions made, the first and foremost point for consideration is,  

               Whether the complaint is maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

              If this point is answered in affirmative, then only dealing with the case on merits would arise.  Therefore, first of all we wish to see whether the complaint would come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

10.       The main contention of the appellants/opposite parties is that the complaint will not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer. In support of this contention, the opposite parties relied on the following judgements;-

1.  The judgement reported in (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 159, rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Maharishi Dayanand University – Vs – Surjeet Kaur –wherein it was held that the “ respondent as a student is neither consumer nor University is rendering any service to its students. Hence, the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint”. 
2. In a batch of cases against various institutions in CC.No.261/2012 and other cases, the Hon’ble National Commission as per common order dated 20.01.2020 has held in detail placing reliance of various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 

Some of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which were placed reliance in the above order of the Hon’ble National Commission are;-

i)     In P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs – Ellan Charitable Trust & Ors, reported in 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC) that “students are not consumers” and “Education” is not a commodity and that Educational Institutions are not rendering “Service”.

ii)     In Maharishi  Dayanand University  - Vs – Surjeet Kaur,              reported in 2020(11)SCC 159 dated 19.07.2020 it was held that “the Board is not a service provider”  and a student who takes an examination is not a “consumer” and consequently complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the “Board”.    

iii)    In Civil Appeal No.17802/2017 and 17803/2017 dated 30.10.2017 in Anupama College of Engineering – Vs – Gulshan Kumar & Ors. the Hon’ble Supreme Court placing reliance of the judgement of the Apex Court in Maharshi Dayanad University – Vs – Surjeet Kaur, has held that “ Education is not a commodity.  Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service; therefore, in matter of an admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service.  Such a matter cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986”.   

10)   In view of the above, it is crystal clear that the issue is no more res-integra and it is settled that the “Education is not a commodity and that Educational Institutions are not rendering “Service”. Therefore, it is concluded that the educational institutions are not providing service and thus the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

               Since the above point is answered against the complainant stating that the complainant himself cannot be considered as a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint filed by the complainant itself is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.  Therefore, we are not inclined to deal with the merits of the matter.  

11)        In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Erode made in C.C.No.63/2011 dated 12.04.2013 and the complaint is dismissed without costs.   There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

               The Registry is directed to return the mandatory deposit duly discharged in favour of the appellants/opposite parties, if any with accrued interest thereon.      

 

      

 

S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,                                                                                                                             R. SUBBIAH,

           MEMBER.                                                                                                                                                PRESIDENT. 

 

Index: Yes/No  

TCM/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/Sep/2021